@David ******

No, there are no variants. Don't worry... you're correct, he's wrong... that's it.

@Jim *******

Yeah... that's what I thought... you have nothing to prove your claims. And if you would know the country you would also know that spoken words are absolutely worthless. Never mind... I'll take your advice and enjoy the beach... 😁

@Jim *******

"...already confirmed by MFA..."

Do you have any reliable (written) source for that? Or just this interview on youtube?

@Jim *******

Not correct? Well... as I said before... there are two different statements about the price for this extension. And just the fact that all extensions cost 1,900 isn't a guarantee that they don't charge more for a brand new type of visa. About frequent travelling... where is it written that you don't have to show the money again and/or prove of workation or soft power?

Many things are still unclear, we need to wait... just "wishful thinking" isn't helpful at the moment...

First of all... you become a tax resident in Thailand if you stay more than 180 days within a tax year (tax year = calendar year). But there is a double taxation agreement between Canada and Thailand since 1985. So... only one time tax. With 25% tax you might think about where you want to be taxed... it could be cheaper here. Best if you contact an accountant to clear the details.

@Bob *********

My thoughts... I don't believe that they give away 5 years for one doctor's appointment and a one time proof of money. There will be some catch for sure...

@Greta ****

That's exactly the point... nobody knows for sure yet what will happen if you want to extend at the immigration or when you re-enter. Do you need to show a new "soft power"? What about the 500k? What about the price for the extension? Some say 1,900 others say 10k? Everything is just hearsay at the moment... time will tell...

@Phil *****

What you quoted is about the reduction of the coverage from 3 million to 400k. Can we, at least, agree about that?

But as I told you already... that's not the point, that's not what the OP is talking about, it has nothing to do with the coverage.

@Phil *****

Well... that's not what this post is about... that's a whole different story.

@Phil *****

Seems to be the wrong link... this one is just about the change of the coverage... back to 400k/40k.